MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588017292 · doi:10.1201/9781315375045-33

Seabed preparation design and construction for the Malampaya phase 3 depletion compression platform

2016· article· en· W2588017292 on OpenAlexaff
Jasvinder Opkar, Leon Lorenti, Andrew Grime

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsArup Group (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProsperitySeabedMarine engineeringPipeline (software)Compression (physics)EngineeringPipeline transportEnvironmental scienceCivil engineeringPetroleum engineeringGeologyOceanographyMechanical engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Depletion Compression Platform (DCP) was conceived by Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. (SPEX) to provide additional gas compression to account for the future expected decrease in well pressure from the Malampaya field. The Malampaya project is very important to the ongoing prosperity of the Philippines, with the exported gas feeding three power stations which have a combined output providing up to 45% of the power needs of Luzon, the largest and most populous island in the Philippines.
\nDuring the concept phase of the project SPEX selected Arup’s ACE Gravity Base Structure (GBS) as the substructure solution for the DCP. The DCP substructure was designed to be supported on four linked regular hexagonal pad footings with dimensions of 18 m x 20.8 m x 4m deep. These pad footings were founded on individually prepared support pads composed of engineered rock fill material of approximately 1 m in thickness.
\nIt is standard practice to include a larger sized scour blanket around the footing perimeter to prevent local erosion, undermining and loss of support. However, during design development we were challenged by the project team to omit this element altogether by selecting a founding engineered rock fill material which was itself suitably sized to prevent scour.
\nGiven there is no analytical approach available to accurately determine the local flow enhancement around the apices of the individual hexagonal pad footings at seabed level, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modelling and Wave Tank Testing (WTT) were employed. The effect of the existing adjacent Concrete Gravity Structure (CGS) was also considered as part of this assessment. The results of the CFD modelling and WTT was used to calculate a minimum size range for the engineered rock fill which is capable of resisting the enhanced flow velocities in the 100-year return period cyclonic storm event.
\nFollowing calculation of the required size of engineered rock fill material, this information was presented to the potential seabed preparation Contractors for agreement on the achievable surface profile. The agreed local surface profile of the seabed preparation support pads was then used to assess the structural performance of the pad footing. Once structural performance was shown to be adequate this confirmed that the dedicated larger sized scour protection layer could be omitted. This yielded savings to the project by minimising material procurement, vessel modification and offshore working time.
\nThe construction of the seabed preparation support pads using the larger sized engineered rock fill was performed successfully within the tolerances established and agreed through early consultation with the potential seabed preparation Contractors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOffshore Engineering and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207